[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[Andre Broersen]

Bodvar to Mary, Andre, John, All:
This argument about the impossibility of "conceptualizing" anything
without the subject (the viewer) is playing straight into SOM's hand
and John (the kindergarten) and Andre (the apostate) gladly grabbed
it. One must - as Pirsig at his best does - point to the paradoxes the
conceptualizing subject/conceptual reality creates. This is after all
what the MOQ is supposed to repair, and what IT ONLY CAN
REPAIR IN THE SOL INTERPRETATION.  When Pirsig's corrupted
intellect failed to dissolve the praradoxes (the mind/matter for
instance) he got all sore and started about the SOM not being
important and the MOQ "setting sail" without SOM. Grrrrrr!!! The
MOQ created SOM and it must find its place inside the MOQ

Andre:
I'll take this by bits and pieces Bodvar.
You start off by suggesting that conceptualisation is possible without
viewer and viewed. I wholeheartedly concur. It is your SOL that
suggests the division between viewer and viewed. That is why John
prefers the kindergarten and I adopt the role of apostate.

Pirsig did not corrupt intellect nor the intellectual level. You did
by inventing the SOL which, as far as I am concerned is predicated
upon the belief (!)  that the MoQ 'emerged' from SOM in the same way
as the social level emerged from the biological level. I think this is
a misunderstanding on your part. The MoQ did not emerge from SOM. I
have told you this many times but you have not directly responded to
this assertion.

At no stage has Mr. Pisrig suggested that the MoQ has arisen out of
SOM. At no stage has Mr. Pirsig suggested that we should
discard/nullify a S/O analysis. He has been at pains to stress over
and over again that such an analysis is fine...it has its value BUT
needs expanding...and he has done so. The only beef the MoQ has with
SOM is that it doesn't accept values. How can the idea of 'values' as
the basic groundsuff of everything emerge from a non-value
rationality/reasoning?

This is impossible. It must have come from somewhere else...and that
is why I reffered you to the Phaedrus entering India an empirical
scientist and leaving one,...  to the continuation of the passage: '
However, he'd been exposed to a lot and had acquired a kind of latent
image that appeared in conjunction with many other latent images later
on'(ZMM, p 136) And doesn't he 'laterally'drift on many occassions in
ZMM?

The intellectual level gets corrupted when the claim is made, as you
do, that it is dominated by S/O reasoning. You continue to assert that
a proper way of understanding the MoQ is only possible by recognising
your self created SOL gate. I take this as a form of bigotry Bodvar
that defies experience!

Where has Mr. Pirsig failed to resolve the Mind/Matter paradox? Where
has Mr. Pirsig suggested that a S/O analysis is not important? These
are just 2 examples whereby you blatantly disregard the fact (to
substantiate your claim) and ignore the opposite!

The MoQ does not need the SOL interpretation. This is your misreading
of ZMM and LILA and your only doing based upon an inferred
methodological emergence of the MoQ out of SOM. By reasserting this
you de-value the MoQ. To quote part of annotation 133: ' This kind of
comparison is what I have meant by the term 'philosophology'. It is
done by people who are not seeking to understand what is written but
only to classify it so that they don't have to see it as anything
new'. A bit like Northrop's criticism of Hume, whom he did not
consider an empiricist at all, rather a rationalist.

You have staked the last 12 years on this Bodvar so you will not let
go of this. There is celebrity status at stake here for you... .

Ahhh, those fucking mirrors.

For nothing that it is worth... still flying... .
Andre